Parental Units and A Supreme Court Justice

So, in this hectic week my parents and aunt and uncle came to visit me in London. While they were settling in however, I managed to sneak away to see Associate Justice Antonin Scalia give a lecture at LSE. The main point of his speech was how judges should not be activist, not try to legislate from the bench, not inject their values into their rulings, and not think of the Constitution as a living document. He thought judges should also defer to the democratic process on what should and shouldn't be legal. This all seemed to conflict in my head with the Libertarian values that I hold. So how do inherent individual rights hold up in this?

I got up some courage (no liquid courage needed) and asked him since the 14th and 15th amendments were passed in the 1860s and Plessy v Ferguson in 1896 affirmed the "separate but equal" doctrine, then wasn't Brown v Board of Education in 1954 an activist ruling going against almost 100 years of precedent? I was a little nervous in speaking (I wonder if it showed), understandably because I was speaking directly to the highest government official I have ever seen in person. He laughed and said I was one of those people who he gets every speech that waves "the bloody red shirt of Brown!" He then proceeded to answer my question. The second half made sense: one example does not make a trend or justify judicial activism all the time. Fair enough and good point: 1 good decision due to activism doesn't outweigh if there are 100 bad ones. Yet his first part of the answer was complete bullshit. He said if he were on the Supreme Court in Brown, he would have voted with the majority decision because he would have agreed with the dissenting opinion of Justice John Marshall Harlan in Plessy. But you can't get a precedent from the minority dissenting opinion!!! After he finished, I heard another voice ask about stare decisis. And sure enough I recognized that voice: backup from Kris Rodgers, a classmate from high school! He heard my question and was trying to further prod Scalia. God I love Regians. Afterwards, Rodgers and I both agreed a dissenting opinion is not stare decisis, so we have no idea of Scalia makes himself sleep at night with that. In retrospect, since he thinks that rights and law descend from the democratic process, I should have asked him what he thinks about the 9th Amendment. Oh well, for next time!

His views sort of alarmed me looking back on the speech afterwards. Scalia said shouldn't put values into jurisprudence, (I agree: last thing I need is a judge saying you have a right to a car or a TV or some other socialist corruption of the meaning of rights) but I think libertarian values are inherently contained in the Constitution and Scalia's strict reading misses a good deal of value structure built into the constitution. I like Scalia and agree with a lot of what he said. Somehow this came to my mind, that people view me as a conservative (the implications of supporting Scalia brought this up in my mind). But Riddle me this, Joker! If I'm conservative would I be the following:
-anti-Patriot act
-pro-gay marriage (well more like anti-state-sponsored-marriage, go to the church of your choice, leave marriage to church, civil unions to state) [Marriage is a semantics game, anyway because a civil union is just a marriage that isn't called that. And also, the standards of marriage have evolved and differed between the church and state like marriages between different races. More about how state institutionalized marriage is contrived here)
-pro-drug legalization
-pro-immigration
-pro-pollution/Pigouvian taxation (but only for replacing others, like income tax)
-anti-draft in the militaru
-pro-normalization with Cuba (it would actually hasten the end of regime if we weren't so damn stubborn)
-pro-privacy rights
-Anti-Guantanamo Bay, torture, and terrorism laws

So yes, since I support the above, am I conservative? Is that what makes a person what he is? Or is it more of how you carry yourself than how you align politically? Maybe this is just more reason why labels are completely empty and meaningless.

The Republicans in turmoil and my family in London was a microcosm of the Republican implosion. My Aunt and Uncle don't want McCain; Janel said she would go Democrat even for Hillary in the November election and was for socialized health care. My uncle just seemed unsure or unimpressed. Dad went for his guts and voted McCain, My mom went with Romney. So yes, that was the introduction to my parents and aunt/uncle's 5 day stay in London. I was really busy going around with them to see some sites, but we went to less stereotypical places because all of us had been to London before and we wanted to catch the stuff on the periphery that we had missed. It is difficult when adults don't run on college time: I would meet up with them at 9 in the morning and go around all day until 11 at night...and then not go to sleep until later. So yes it got very tiring very quickly, especially because we were always constantly in motion going around London. It was good to see them, even though I will be back in a month. I think my parents and aunt/uncle enjoyed it. They were impressed with my navigation skills around the city. They must think I have become a true native: in a way, I have.